USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11583
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-03718-SDG
DAVID W. FITZGIBBON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,
THE FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSORS,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 11, 2021)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 2 of 10
David W. Fitzgibbon appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of his former employers, Fulton County, Georgia and the Fulton County
Board of Assessors. Specifically, he appeals the grant of summary judgment on
his retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Fitzgibbon argues the district court erred in
granting summary judgment against him, because (1) he presented evidence that
his belief that he engaged in a protected activity was objectively reasonable, and
(2) he also established a causal connection between his protected activity and his
termination and that his protected activity was the “but-for cause” of his
termination. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Fitzgibbon, who is white, served as the chief tax appraiser of Fulton County
Tax Assessor’s Office beginning in 2012. The primary function of the Tax
Assessor’s Office is to produce a timely and accurate tax digest every year. The
chief tax appraiser’s job is to “compile[] a consolidation report containing
information about parcels of property from which the net taxable digest is
calculated,” which is then submitted to the Board of Assessors for approval. After
additional review, the tax digest is ultimately submitted to the Department of
Revenue.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 3 of 10
In 2016, while Fitzgibbon was serving as the chief tax appraiser, Fulton
County experienced difficulties producing the tax digest in a timely and accurate
manner. These difficulties included erroneous valuation calculations. As a result,
the Department of Revenue gave the County an extension to September 1, 2016 to
submit its tax digest, which caused a two-month delay in the collection of taxes.
This delay created a host of “complications and distractions” for local
governments. On August 19, 2016, the Board of Assessors called for a closed
meeting, expressing that it was “extremely concerned about the delays associated
with the tax digest and wanted to discuss a plan of action to remedy any future
problems.” Fitzgibbon, as the chief tax appraiser, was not invited to attend.
However, Fitzgibbon was aware of the meeting and knew that he was the subject
of the meeting.
Meanwhile, that same year, Fitzgibbon and the Tax Assessor’s Office
received a series of anonymous complaints from employees alleging that
Fitzgibbon and certain others in management were creating a racially hostile work
environment. As a result, the Department of Human Resources Management and
the Office of Diversity and Civil Rights Compliance initiated investigations, which
culminated in a Workplace Environment Assessment Report and an Executive
Summary (the “Human Resources Report”), dated August 24, 2016. The Human
Resources Report detailed employee complaints of management, and
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 4 of 10
recommended actions for improving morale in the office. It did not, however,
recommend any disciplinary action against Fitzgibbon.
When Fitzgibbon was provided a copy of the Human Resources Report on
August 26, 2016, he responded with an email on August 29, 2016 (the “August 29
email”), sent to (1) the personnel director for Fulton County, (2) members of the
Board of Assessors, and (3) five other individuals. In that email, Fitzgibbon
alleged “reverse discrimination” based on race.1 Many of members of the Board of
Assessors found Fitzgibbon’s email “unprofessional.”
1
The email stated the following:
It is very apparent that after nine months in which you were
supposed to interview all the Assessor’s staff that you have drawn
conclusions based on unsubstantiated statements from less than half
of the staff, and no supporting evidence. Those staff interviewed
obviously included those that distributed the anonymous letters
filled with lies and accusations that were not supported by facts or
evidence and that any reasonable person would have discounted as
a small faction of staff with a racial agenda against the only two
caucasian managers in the Assessors’ Office.
As the environment in the Assessors Office described in your report
is in no way reflective of the true working environment in the
Assessors Office, it becomes obvious that you are not qualified to
conduct an impartial and thorough review as indicated by the report
which bases the conclusions of, according to your staff investigators
on a small faction of those interviewed, which in turn are less than
one half of the total staff.
It seems very apparent that your staff investigators, all African-
American, and those interviewed, also African-American have an
agenda that smacks of reverse discrimination and the sole purpose
of those that seem so discontented is not to seek Justice but to bring
about a change in leadership that would take the Assessors’ Office
back to those days of incompetency so evident and so thoroughly
described in the Department of Revenue’s Performance Review
Board of 2006, and which has been completely changed under the
4
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 5 of 10
On August 28, 2016, the day before Fitzgibbon’s email, a member of the
Board of Assessors sent an email to the rest of the Board recommending that they
terminate Fitzgibbon. The Board of Assessors voted to terminate Fitzgibbon on
September 15, 2016.
Fitzgibbon filed suit against Fulton County and the Board of Assessors
alleging, among other things, Title VII retaliation. Specifically, Fitzgibbon
claimed he was fired for sending the August 29 email, which he says alleged race
discrimination and thereby constituted protected activity under Title VII. He
alleged that his firing was thus unlawful retaliation. He also alleged that the reason
given for his termination—the delay of the tax digest preparation—was pretextual.
As relevant to this appeal, Fitzgibbon and the Defendants filed cross-
motions for summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim. The district
current leadership team.
Before further comments or distribution of the report the following
information needs to be furnished to me and the Board of Assessors’
for review:
Please send me the following data:
•the race, gender and age of each staff interviewed
•a list of questions asked each and their verbatim responses
•any spreadsheets, group discussions, or method of analyzing the
results of the interviews
•specific instances of complaints or statements that would support
the preposterous accusations other than personal observations or
opinions
•the race age and gender of every member or the interview panel and
their professional qualifications and specialized training in these
matters.
I expect these items by close of business Wednesday, August 31.
5
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 6 of 10
court denied Fitzgibbon’s motion and granted the Defendants’ motion. The court
found insufficient evidence to infer that Fitzgibbon’s subjective belief that he
engaged in a protected activity was objectively reasonable. The court said
Fitzgibbon failed to proffer specific evidence that racial animus motivated those
who participated in the investigation and produced the Human Resources Report.
The court also found that, even assuming Fitzgibbon had established that his email
was a protected activity, he could not meet his burden that the email was the but-
for cause of his termination, given that his termination was already in motion
before his participation in the alleged protected activity. Fitzgibbon timely
appealed.
II.
Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee
“because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice . . .
or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-3(a). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, the
plaintiff must prove (1) he was engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) he
suffered an adverse action; and (3) a causal link existed between the protected
activity and the adverse employment action. Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC,
843
F.3d 1295, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016).
6
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 7 of 10
A plaintiff has the ultimate burden of showing that a retaliatory motivation
was the but-for cause of the adverse action. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v.
Nassar,
570 U.S. 338, 352,
133 S. Ct. 2517, 2528 (2013). Thus, to survive
summary judgment, a plaintiff must show that the complained of adverse decision
was because of his protected activity, and his employer would not have made the
decision but for his engagement in that protected activity.
Id. A plaintiff can
establish causation for prima facie purposes by showing a “very close” temporal
proximity between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse action.
Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc.,
506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (quotation marks omitted). However, “in a retaliation case, when an
employer contemplates an adverse employment action before an employee engages
in protected activity, temporal proximity between the protected activity and the
subsequent adverse employment action does not suffice to show causation.” Drago
v. Jenne,
453 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).
We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment.
Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp.,
291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary
judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party, presents no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
compels judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Duckworth,
648 F.3d 1216, 1219 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011). “All reasonable
7
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 8 of 10
inferences arising from the undisputed facts should be made in favor of the
nonmovant, but an inference based on speculation and conjecture is not
reasonable.” Ave. CLO Fund, Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
723 F.3d 1287, 1294
(11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). A “mere scintilla of evidence”
supporting the nonmoving party’s position will not suffice to survive summary
judgment. Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty.,
446 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted).
III.
We conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
Defendants on Fitzgibbon’s retaliation claim. We need not reach the issue of
whether the August 29 email constitutes protected activity under Title VII, because
even assuming that it does, Fitzgibbon has not shown that he can meet his burden
of establishing but-for causation.
Here, the district court found that even assuming that Fitzgibbon’s August
29 email constituted protected activity under Title VII, he could not establish that it
was the but-for cause of his termination. Specifically, the court found:
[T]he record here is replete with evidence that
[Fitzgibbon’s] termination from employment was already
contemplated and in motion prior to his participation in
alleged protected activity. In fact, [Fitzgibbon] had
recently failed to perform an essential part of his job—the
timely and accurate production of a tax digest.
[Fitzgibbon] cannot show, on this record, that the
8
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 9 of 10
termination of his employment would not have occurred
but for his allegation of race discrimination.
We conclude the district court did not err in finding that Fitzgibbon failed to
establish the causal connection required to establish a prima facie retaliation claim
because his termination was contemplated separate from, and before, he engaged in
any allegedly protected activity. This record shows that Fitzgibbon’s termination
was in motion even before he sent the email he claims as his protected activity.
The record shows that the Board of Assessors was considering termination due to
employee complaints about the “tense” and “unprofessional” work environment
Fitzgibbon reportedly created in the Tax Assessor’s Office. We know that the
Board of Assessors met ten days before Fitzgibbon sent his email to discuss the
problems caused by the faulty 2016 tax digest, and a Board member recommended
Fitzgibbon’s termination to the rest of the Board before Fitzgibbon ever alleged
discrimination. Although Fitzgibbon was fired two weeks after the August 29
email, the earlier discussions of termination precludes him from establishing a
causal connection based on temporal proximity alone. See Drago,
453 F.3d at
1308 (“[I]n a retaliation case, when an employer contemplates an adverse
employment action before an employee engages in protected activity, temporal
proximity between the protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment
action does not suffice to show causation.”).
9
USCA11 Case: 20-11583 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 10 of 10
Moreover, Fitzgibbon carries the ultimate burden of persuasion that the
reasons for his termination were pretextual and that the adverse employment action
was instead the result of intentional discrimination. See Furcron, 843 F.3d at
1310–11. On this record, we cannot say the reasons discussed by officials for
firing him in advance of his emails—namely, the untimely preparation of the
required tax digest, and unprofessionalism detailed in the Human Resources
Report—were pretextual.2 Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2
The record also contains evidence showing that another former chief tax appraiser, who
was African-American, was removed from her position in 2006 for failing to present a tax digest
in a timely manner, and that an assistant chief appraiser, a person of color, was also terminated
for creating an “unpleasant” work environment for employees.
10
